Blue Dogs want a seat at the leadership table
posted at 9:00 am on November 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Democratic moderates in the House have begun to assert themselves in their caucus, two years after giving Nancy Pelosi the majority. Blue Dogs issued a call to see moderates in key leadership positions and have proposed candidates for these slots. They want recognition of their role in maintaining the Democratic majority:
Blue Dog Democrats Friday called on the Democratic Caucus to support “moderate voices” in the slew of leadership decisions the party will be making this month.
The release did not name any of the races or contenders, but Blue Dog sources say it can be seen as preliminary support for Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) in a brewing bid for vice chairman of the caucus and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) in his fight to stave off a committee chairmanship challenge from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
“As the moderate faction of our caucus has grown and contributed to our large majority, our leadership must have more moderate voices at the table if we want to continue to be successful, strong, and effective as a caucus,” said Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.).
I’m not sure that anyone would have described John Dingell as a Blue Dog Democrat before now, but he’s certainly more moderate than Henry Waxman. Waxman wants Dingell out of the Energy and Commerce Committee so that Waxman can pursue more radical solutions on global warming. Dingell wants to protect the auto industry from excessive regulation, and has fought back against Waxman’s attempt to wrest control of the committee away from him.
The Blue Dogs see this kind of leftward tilt as a threat to their seats. If the 111th Congress runs hard to the left, voters in their more conservative districts will punish them by replacing them with Republican challengers in 2010 — and Democrats will lose their majority just as they did in 1994. Their need for self-preservation pushes them to get more of their members into leadership.
This leadership fight will give voters a clear indication of how radical the upcoming single-party government will get. If the Blue Dogs get their committee chairs and their leadership positions, they may help keep the worst excesses of Pelosi and Barack Obama in check. If not, we can expect major overreach, and Republicans can start getting ready to take back these conservative districts in two years.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Don’t hold your breath. Pelosy/Reid are not known for their compassion or flexibility. “Let’s hear it for the power…”
cannonball on November 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Or the dems field even more leftist replacements in the blue dog districts.
Blue Dog dems are a threat to the dem party, I expect a purge. Yes it would be reasonable to place these people in places to moderate the party… But from my point of view these idiots have no thought of moderation in mind.
gdonovan on November 8, 2008 at 9:05 AM
It will be interesting to see if Rahm is just as interested in purging the far left liberals from congress – he will certainly have an easier time holding on to power.
After all, it was his strategy to get moderates to run in the first place. He doesn’t seem the type to blow it all out of impatience.
Queen0fCups on November 8, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Something to think about it, but I think the blue dog districts are relatively conservative districts. The districts in IN that went blue in 2006 are a pretty good example of that. The Dems only get a once in a lifetime economic crisis to help bail them out once in a lifetime. Without it, Election Day would’ve been far different.
eyedoc on November 8, 2008 at 9:09 AM
<blockquoteQueen0fCups on November 8, 2008 at 9:06 AM
What Rahm wants to do is a lot less important than what Obama wants to do.
TheBigOldDog on November 8, 2008 at 9:09 AM
I agree Ed, exactly how radical this administration is will be decided by Obama’s choices for his cabinet.
Bush went with Powell and other centrist, I don’t think Obama will have any of that. All of the Democrats who won their seats based on a Conservative platform will be squashed by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Durbin, and others. These people raised 700M, which simply means they owe big time. Elections have very serious consequences, and we have just elected the most Liberal radical ever to call the WH their home.
Righteous battles for our liberties and freedom lie ahead.
Keemo on November 8, 2008 at 9:12 AM
What makes you think there is any fair elections in the near future?
ACORN is still active and under dem control, there will be no further looking into them with Obama at the helm.
Has anyone here given that any thought? With enough ACORN people to direct to the problem areas he can make the vote dance to his tune.
Spitzer is already off the hook even though he broke more laws as AG of NY then I can shake a stick at. What makes you think anyone is going to be punished for a little votor fraud?
gdonovan on November 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Why would the Dems “govern from the center” as people keep saying?
This is a once in a generation opportunity to advance the far-left agenda.
lodge on November 8, 2008 at 9:16 AM
These guys aren’t stupid- the liberals always overreach when in power- see 1992.
Especially now with a stooge media, Zero, Nancy and harry will believe they are ordained by God to rule.
The blue dogs will be crushed in 2010 with guilt by association- assuming the RNC is actually led by somebody competent.
jjshaka on November 8, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Is that Barney’s successor? I imagine it is.
Marcus on November 8, 2008 at 9:23 AM
A purge of the blue dogs will just mean Republicans picking up seats in the more conservative districts now represented by those blue dogs. So I don’t think it’ll happen.
Rahm Emanuel fun fact: Rahm is the German word for “cream”.
flipflop on November 8, 2008 at 9:23 AM
I’ll put money on overreach. How much is in your wallet? :-)
steveegg on November 8, 2008 at 9:24 AM
That’s the first thing that jumped oout at me too; John Dingell as a moderate, Blue dog Democrat? Well, I guess its true, everything is relative. Relative to Waxman Dingell is practically a conservative :-)
johnsteele on November 8, 2008 at 9:25 AM
It’s a little late for the these guys to start worrying that the party has gone too far to the left. Maybe they should have spoken up earlier, before their party nominated a Marxist.
With the open fellating of The One by the media not likely to end any time soon, it might take until 2012 for the proper House cleaning.
darkpixel on November 8, 2008 at 9:25 AM
I might add this:
Simply focusing in on Obama’s own words, running from the ME will be a small token of what this man wants to accomplish over the next (4) years. The rewriting of The Constitution & The Bill of Rights will be a top priority if we are to believe his words. Nationalization of our major corporations, health industry, meds; all will come quickly, and the end of small business as we know it will follow.
Airplane Industry
Car making Industry
Oil Industry
Health Industry
The Socialization of America will now become the righteous battle of our time. The MSM & Hollywood will spin and spin this into something worthy and great.
How successful has the “dumbing down of Americans” campaign worked for Liberals. As we now know, this process starts in grade school and is relentless; thus the “voucher” system for better education was fought so hard by Liberals when every time Bush tried to bring it forward.
We must look at what weapons/tools the Liberals have used so successfully to push forward their hatred of this country. We must methodically take apart their systems, naming names while re-educating the people.
Naming the names must become a vital part of the new media, before the new media gets shut down by this administration.
Ed & Allah, they are going to make every effort to silence you, destroy you, bury you. Time might be short based upon the numbers in both houses.
Keemo on November 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Too late “blue dogs” you’ve already blown it and the future is bleak. Remember how long it took to get rid of Stalin and the East Block communist regime leaders?
rplat on November 8, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Information is now leaking out about just how deeply Hollywood was involved with electing Obama. From teaching him how to stand, walk, look, dress; fund raising and free air time on so many shows (Oprah)…
Punish Hollywood by boycotting anything & everything created by them!
Do “we, the people” have any power left?
Yes we do, for the moment. Time could be short, so we had better take action immediately.
Keemo on November 8, 2008 at 9:34 AM
We can offer whiskey and cigarettes to grass roots leftists to agitate for radical constitutional amendments. You know, the hard core commie demands like live birth abortion.
Let’s turn Nancy, Harry and The One into fire hydrants, then unleash and incite the blue dogs to pee all over them, a little “golden shower” for il Duce!
jeff_from_mpls on November 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Incite the proletariat to agitate for a Hollywood Windfall Profits Confiscation to build hospitals for AIDS patients, and to save the planet NOW!
jeff_from_mpls on November 8, 2008 at 9:39 AM
“protect the auto industry from excessive regulation”
Well, since we’ll all soon own the domestic auto industry, wouldn’t government regulations simply replace the guidelines set forth by their respective boards?
I mean, take fuel economy. The auto industry COULD have invested in higher fuel economy technology on its own, anticipating a trend in gas prices and buying habits…much like Honda and Toyota. Instead…they balked, and rode their unsustainable model to its very end, which seems to be upon us this coming week. Were the government to bail them out, and then put a regulation in place that any car company operating in the US needed x number of fuel efficient vehicles…wouldn’t that be the same as an order to retool coming from their board?
Am I missing a difference here? Or is compliance to a corporate guideline different than compliance to a regulation?
ernesto on November 8, 2008 at 9:41 AM
The sheep could care less what color the dog is. They just know they have to follow directions.
Limerick on November 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM
The 111th congress,the one,one,one. How special, voting patterns after the start of the new session, will provide a glimpse of how partisan the Blue Dogs will be and whether a liberal agenda can be waltzed through the house, strictly along party lines.
midlander on November 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM
This will be very interesting to see how it shakes out. Meanwhile, David Bonior is over on HuffPo bragging about how three new senators won despite the anti-Card Check ads that were run against them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bonior/on-november-4th-workers-w_b_142227.html
Looks like Card Check will come up on the agenda soon.
juliesa on November 8, 2008 at 9:47 AM
I feel that if obama-reid-pelosi try to shoove through some of their liberal agenda, 1994 would be small. I could see the GOP winning 100 seats in house, especially with Palin holding rallies for them. She would virtually have what they call in jolly old England as a Shadow government
ConservativePartyNow on November 8, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy four years.
moonsbreath on November 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM
They need to worry about the coming spending. Stimulus bills that do nothing to economy and pass on party line votes are more dangerous for them. An auto industry bailout passed on party lines only resonates with the people that work for the big three and does nothing to sell cars for GM. What do they do with the loans retool their plants to sell brand new models that people do not want. How many bailouts will the auto industry need? Then every auto worker at a non-union plant just became a die hard Republican. Then the blue dogs have to worry about unemployment especially in the South. If unemployment keeps going up then the jump in the minimum wage is going to hit the South hardest because they had wages closest to the federal minimum wage. Reducing employees n the middle of Summer? What is that going to do to teem unemployment?
The Blue Dog leadership is going to have to take a long hard look at how they want to vote in the coming months. Leadership positions are just icing on the cake when most of the country views you as the party of the unending give aways.
It is up to Republican leadership to abstain from earmarks, and vote in a solid free market block. That will put enormous pressure on Pelosi and Reid. They’ll overplay their hand and rely on the media for cover. After this blatantly tilted election cycle that just ain’t gonna work. No Bush, no way to side step the blame.
Theworldisnotenough on November 8, 2008 at 9:50 AM
I have absolutely no trust in Pelosi, Reid, or the “elected one” to contain their extreme Marxist agenda by allowing the moderate Blue Dogs a leadership role. The finally get their chance to turn the United States of America into a European Socialist wet dream. They are too arrogant, stupid, and deep in the pocket of George Soros to do anything else. The idiots that voted for the “give me” government are going to get a very bad dose of buyer’s remorse once the reality of the Democrats failed policies put them and their families out of work, freezing in a government controlled hovel waiting in line for the most basic necessities of life. I am quit confident they will bring our economy to a screeching halt with their tax & spend, save the planet from Gorebull warming, and monetary policies. They will be lucky if we lowly peons clinging to our bibles and guns don’t rise up and start decorating the trees on the Capital Mall with these traitors.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh) Translation: Come and take them!
Retired USAF on November 8, 2008 at 9:50 AM
In 2010, the Dems have twice as many Senate seats to defend as the GOP; it’s a reverse of this year. One of the seats is Harry’s.
By 2010, there may be a lot of broken promises that the One made to his various factions. The thrill will be gone over Obama. The kiddies won’t necesarily turn out in a non -presidental eleciton year.
Tie Obama and his unfulfilled promises to the Dem senate candidates, and to the blue dogs, and you have an interesting race. I don’t know if the GOP could take back either house, but the threat might be enough for Nancy and Harry to tell Obama to proceed cautiously.
By 2010, the economy might be such that Obama needs more revenue and has to start the tax increases. Should be fun to watch.
Wethal on November 8, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Sorry…I’m kinda OCD with that.
flipflop on November 8, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I wonder if Senator Jim Webb feels metaphorically castrated?
You must admit, it must kill an alpha male like Webb to know he picked sides with the most gutless stratum of American life.
Code Pink + Jim Webb??? No way.
He must go hunting regularly, to remind himself he’s not weak and despicable like the clowns he has to bow down to and obey.
Senator Webb, come on, you’re one of us and you know it. You’re a man. Lose those weenies and let’s get down to business.
jeff_from_mpls on November 8, 2008 at 9:54 AM
jeff_from_mpls on November 8, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Same applies to Max Baucus of Montana. Max is a real man, and I can’t see Max sitting with this cesspool of girlymen and liking it much.
Keemo on November 8, 2008 at 9:58 AM
No one should do that to a dog. That’s just plain wrong.
Blake on November 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM
What happened to the concept that DOG IS MAN’S BEST FRIEND? Anyone who dyed their hound this way should get the tar and feathers treatment! Or was this Nancy Pelosi’s best friend?
John Bibb
rocketman on November 8, 2008 at 10:20 AM
This is the problem with politicians, though. Blue dogs whatever, it’s still about power… nobody has learned anything……yet.
MNDavenotPC on November 8, 2008 at 10:26 AM
One word: Hurray!
Kevin M on November 8, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Actually, Pelosi et al do plan on governing from the center. The only problem is that they believe they themselves are moderates, and the Blue Dogs are far to the right.
Nugai on November 8, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Agreed, but he would not have chosen Rahm if they weren’t already in philosophical alignment. I am of the opinion that Obama’s radical associations were not about philosophical alignment as much as they were about political expediency to access their power as gatekeepers. He was on the political fast track. I have to wonder if he really has any true political conviction of his own except for lust of power, which is why he remained purposefully blank and allowing people to project upon him what they will.
Queen0fCups on November 8, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Question: Is the GOP party itself at this point so inextricably associated with far right Christian ideology that it has become hamstrung as a force for uniting those of us with sincere conservative values, who are at the same time open to secular as well as non secular views? I know that there are Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, small ‘C’ Christians, and others who would gladly sacrifice for their country, who loathe the socialist ideology of the uber liberal left, but who are unable as well to buy into the Republican party because of its perceived obeisance to some of the more inflexible elements of far right Christian ideology. Could we not imagine if you will a new party, forged around the core conservative values of small government, self-reliance, hard work, and above all the common defense of the U. S. Constitution? A party that considers the 2nd Amendment ‘First among equals,’ for it is the sole right we have that ensures our ability to protect and defend all of our other rights? A party that commits to a secure border, the enforcement of our existing immigration laws, and the abolishment of the welfare state within ten years with all the fervor and single-minded dedication that President Kennedy had us bring to the space race? And what if this new party welcomed the Budhist, the Evangelical Christian, and the Agnostic in equal measure, joined by their inalienable right to worship or not as they see fit while at the same time sharing a common belief in these conservative ideals? I don’t pretend to have all the answers here, but if you build a party around Evangelical beliefs, then the Catholic, the Mormon,the Jew, and the ‘undecided’ are left out in the cold. Would it not be better to start fresh with a new party, free from the stain of its own past, that says, “Bring your Evangelical beliefs, your Judaic, and your Muslim beliefs. Bring your Atheistic, your Agnostic, your ‘Other;’ all are welcome at this new table where conservatism and constitutionalism are our common bond?
A pipe dream, perhaps, but to my way of thinking, any other approach that places a particular religious ‘brand’ at the top of the conservative pyramid only invites further fractionalization, when what’s really needed to defeat liberalism at this point are overwhelming numbers, and unity of purpose.
I’m calling it the ‘Americana Party.’ Are there others out there who would champion this cause?
CaptFlood on November 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM
One word on Democrat leadership’s moderation and tolerance… Lieberman
RalphyBoy on November 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I have heard first hand, that guns sales are going up in Okalahoma. This Country is arming it’s self to the teeth. Obama is calling for Unity. Americans appear to be arming themselves, for Reality not Rhetoric.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081108/pl_nm/us_usa_guns_1
Dr Evil on November 8, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I do not consider watching my own slow, or not so slow, strangulation “fun to watch.” Nevertheless, mission one between now and 2010 is to purge our own useless party leadership of any non-hacker who insists on bi-partisanship. The leftists will give none in their lust to destroy the country and we should give none. Once we have a solid CONSERVATIVE leadership and foot soldiers, then the leftists’ overreach will be their own undoing.
J.J. Sefton on November 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Meant to say the leftists will give no quarter, and we should give none.
J.J. Sefton on November 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I would tend to agree. Not that I have anything at all against Evangelicals. In fact as a Jew and staunch supporter of Israel, they are our biggest allies, albeit their ideas about how Jews fit in to their armageddon scenario notwithstanding. But yes, many of my co-religionists and others who might consider voting Republican can’t get over the idea of voting for a party that they identify as the party of “Christian extremism.” That’s how they see it; not me.
My conservatism is issue-based, not party based. Read Harry Stein’s brilliant “How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy and Found Inner Peace.” That will give you an idea of how I feel, and what I think you are driving at.
Bottom line, we need to have a much broader appeal than just religion-based. It’s the economy, and national security, stupid.
J.J. Sefton on November 8, 2008 at 11:54 AM
These Blue Dogs are on a fool’s errand. What do the Dems do better than the GOP? Enforce party discipline. The Blue Dogs were the teaser for teh 06′ takeover. They allowed Pelosi to sell voters a pig in a poke. Sound familiar? The Left can never run in the open. They need head coach Saul Alinsky to grease the skids. These Blue Dogs will soon learn that calling out Madame Speaker will earn them in a seta in the boat in place of Fredo.
sladenyv on November 8, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Bwahahahaha! Dingell’s a Blue Dog?! Have I stepped through the looking glass?
Well, we should certainly welcome Lieberman into the Republican fold if that’s how far the lines between conservatives, moderates, and liberals have shifted.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
How did we blow it? Many of the Blue Dogs have voted quite moderately, even conservatively, especially in the House, and all the Blue Dogs I know voted McCain. There’s only so much you can do when you’re a minority.
You know how you guys are always talking about how the GOP has left you and you’re not going to stop fighting? That’s pretty much how us Blue Dogs feel. And the Leftists haven’t done much to win us over over the past few years (calling us lap dogs, or Bush Dogs, to the GOP).
SouthernDem on November 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
As an atheist-leaning agnostic conservative I feel perfectly comfortable in the Republican party as far as religious affiliation goes.
The idea that the Republican party is a party of and for Evangelical Christians is a simply a popular caricature. In fact as far as religious inclusion it’s the party you describe, though I would like to see it much more strenuously pursue the policies you enumerate.
DarkCurrent on November 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM
San Fran Nan and her ilk are not liberals, they’re LEFTISTS. As Goldstein suggests, the first fight is to take back language.
phreshone on November 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Thanks for the feedback; I will defintely check out the H. Stein piece you’ve mentioned.
And thank you for the feedback as well, though with ‘perception equalling reality,’ I’m still inclined to believe that a new party free from such ‘popular caricature,’ might prove a much easier sell than a ‘new and improved GOP…’ At some point we have to move beyond our own comfort zones, stop ‘preaching to the choir,’ and do our best to engage the same youth-based demographic that the libs have done so well. I think once His Obamaness starts really over-reaching, some of the more moderate among his followers might realize what they have wrought and begin looking around for a ‘Plan B.’ I just don’t see the Republican Party, with all the baggage associated with it, as being the most viable and realistic choice. The ‘Americana Party,’ on the other hand, features core conservative values along with a perceived ‘openness’ to both secular and non-secular beliefs that I have to believe will establish it as the more attractive and intuitive option.
And I promise, if somone can tell me how to make a paragraph I swear I’ll stop writing like Kerouac…
CaptFlood on November 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Blue does = Pelosi road kill
Captain America on November 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Pelosi is the Queen Bee and WILL NOT be challenged by the inferior worker dogs who do her bidding.
Expect the moderates to be punished harshly for their treason to The Queen.
BKennedy on November 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM
For those of you who want to throw out the so-called far right evangelical extremists what is it that you don’t agree with?
Protection of and respect for all life? (right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness)
Allowing freedom of religion? (one nation under God)
Respect for the sanctity of marriage?
Fiscal conservatism?
Personal responsibility?
I think the anti-evangelical criticism is just a knee-jerk reaction that has no basis in reality.
mrsmwp on November 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Unions. The big US auto companies have been unable to compete with Honda and Nissan in small, fuel efficient cars because of the expenses that the auto unions extort out of them. Thus, in order to make money, they had to try to dominate where the foreign auto makers don’t compete: large vehicles.
Heck, Honda and Nissan are practically the US auto makes, now, for all that they started in Asia. The old US manufacturing companies are dying from a fatal union infection; we should let them pass.
Count to 10 on November 8, 2008 at 1:33 PM
We might get Murtha’s seat in 2010. I received this from the Bill Russell campaign this morning (I donated over $500 to the effort to rid Congress of that pig Murtha). We need more voiced like Bill’s in Congress:
Dear Friends,
First, I would like to thank all of you who donated your time, talents, and dollars to this campaign. Thanks to your hard work and efforts, we made a great statement in this campaign. Although we did not win the election (thanks to the Obama mania voters who hit the Democrat ticket button), we accomplished several milestones of note. While I definitely would have preferred to have won this last Tuesday, I have learned that God usually has a lesson(s) and something better hidden in the cloud of disappointment. WE WILL MAKE THIS RUN AGAIN IN 2010. In the meantime, we will continue to give voice to values of Southwestern PA.
Here are some of the things that we were able to accomplish because of your efforts:
#1. We helped to turn the political tide of the war against Islamic extremism on the national level. For most of the last year, we have effectively silenced Nancy Pelosi’s biggest mouth piece against the war. By challenging Mr Murtha endorsement of enemy propaganda from an Iraq War veteran’s perspective, we took Mr Murtha’s veil of “moral authority” on the war away from him and were able to clearly articulate the effects of his calls for withdrawal from Iraq and accusations against the Haditha Marines were having on those who are protecting us. This helped to give General Petraeus and all of our Service Men and Women in harm’s way the political cover to complete the Surge and reduce the violence in Iraq. — Had we not been here, the political tide in favor of withdrawal might have won the day and led to cuts in funding for the war effort. This would have led to a genocide in Iraq rivaling that of the killing fields of Cambodia after we withdrew from Vietnam.
#2 We stripped away the veil of invulnerability of Mr Murtha’s seat. All indicators are that a strong majority of those voters who went to the polls with an eye on the Congressional race were voting our way. (What threw everyone a curve were the extremely large numbers of first time voters who voted for Obama and hit the straight party lever in the process, without thinking about the other races.) We have every reason to believe that we would have carried the day in the district had it not been for the Obama Mania that swept the state.
#3 We are giving voice to a new way ahead for the people of SW PA. Many are hungry for a new vision. We are providing it!
#4 You have all contributed to the development of a strong, grass roots base that is going to demand that our party stand against the status quo. You will no longer allow the Republican Party to not stand in opposition to the corruption of our economic development and political independence. — The Party Caucus takes place soon —- IT IS TIME TO TAKE BACK OUR PARTY!
In the next week or so, we will begin scheduling meetings with county committees and groups. We must continue to demand respect to the values we hold dear: LIFE, FAMILY, & FAITH -protected by our Constitutional right to protect our families and communities. WE WILL NOT ALLOW OUR COAL INDUSTRY TO BE BANKRUPTED! We have the means and resources to lead America to energy independence for our economic and national security.
Kasia and I look forward to fighting this fight with you. Kasia grew up under communism and knows all too well the dangers that the seduction of socialism brings. We as a family are committed to ensuring that the future our children inherit will not be ruined by the radical liberals who have taken over political power in Washington.
Thank you all again for all of your support and prayers. Together we will start taking our country back.
Very Respectfully,
Bill
karenhasfreedom on November 8, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Well there are some really decent Blue Dog Dems out there. I know I know I’m crazy right? Well Michaud from ME is actually a fairly decent guy. Worked with my father in the mill up in Northern Maine for many years. What he says he’ll do he actually does.
scrubbiedude on November 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
I agree…let them pass.
ernesto on November 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM
If I’m not mistaken, leadership positions (like chairmanships) are not just handed to the party in power but are voted for and since the party inpower has more votes they just always get them. If that is so, perhaps the bluedogs and the Republicans could come to an arrangement where the Reps get a handful of positions in exchange for voting the blue dogs the remainder, leaving the yellow dogs out of the leadership.
Wouldn’t help kick the yellows out of congress but it would make the Reps look like they’re willing to work with the majority party while dividing the Dems against themselves.
Just an idea.
Browncoatone on November 8, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Dems will be willing to seat the Blue Dogs – but only if the Blue Dogs take a oath Denying that Jesus is the Messiah.
CertainVictory on November 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Dear MRSMWP: If you are alluding to my ‘Americana’ post, and forgive me if I assume you are, please allow me to clarify. The point I was trying to make is that there are legions of decent people out there who have strong conservative values, and a burning love of country, but for a myriad of personal reasons, believe differently than you or I do.
The ‘Americana Party’ simply considers one’s non-political beliefs, be they secular or non-secular — and no matter how fervent — of equal standing with the beliefs of everyone else’s within the party. The goal of the party is to bring an overwhelming majority of politically like-minded conservatives together under a common platform. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Agnostics, Atheists and all others are welcome in equal measure.
Conservatism — of one form or another — is the glue that binds us together on ‘Hot Air’ regardless of our individual religious and/or secular beliefs, and the ‘Americana Party’ simply recognizes and acknowledges that fact by not linking itself (or even allowing the perception that it does) with any one particular theology.
Right or wrong, and for good or ill, the GOP is now inextricably linked with far right Christian theology. And this isn’t just me talking; ask the average man or woman on the street which religious affiliation they most closely associate with Republicanism and it’s Evangelical Christianity all the way. This might be considered an admirable thing if one happens to be of the Evangelical persuasion, but I would hope we can all see the bigger picture that this is probably not a ‘good’ thing for us if it means that others who love our country and value conservative beliefs just as much as we do do not feel sufficiently welcome at the Republican table.
And please trust me when I say that this is anything but a knee-jerk reaction to the events of last Tuesday. Like most of us it was hard not to see the way this election was going to play out months ago. I’ve considered long and hard on what we can do to stem the tide of liberalism and entitlement, and I grow more convinced each day that a true ’sea-change’ in direction is our best overall gambit.
Thanks for the time… It really is a privilege to be able to post here.
CaptFlood on November 8, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Thanks for that correction. You’re absolutely correct, of course. I started to write leftists in my initial post but in deference to the tremendous hands across the aisle approach that the 52 percenters have shown us, I was trying to be nice. My mistake!
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM
MRSMWP, CaptFlood –
Could you define which issues you consider to be the purview of the religious right? I’ve seen various folks make different assumptions about that. Some of our trolls lump anyone who is against abortion (and happens to belong to an organized religion) as being a member of the religious right. I would not consider abortion to an issue that arose from or is promoted solely by the “religious right.”
At the risk of offending people, I’ll go first and say that I think some social issues, like being against abortion and opposed to physician-assisted suicide, are mainstream conservative Republican (not Libertarian) issues. I do not have a strong feel about gay marriage, but because the vast majority of black Obama supporters voted against it here in CA, my tendency would be to say that traditional marriage is also basically a mainstream conservative position.
The things that seem to me to be more “religious right” issues are prayer in schools and teaching intelligent design in science classes in public schools.
I’m curious what you and others here think.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM
If the Blue Dogs keep their committee chairmanships, they may be more valuable to conservatives than newly elected Republicans, who will lack any seniority. If not, and if conservative Republicans take those seats, then Congress will become a lot more polarized.
njcommuter on November 8, 2008 at 4:16 PM
San Fran Nan and her ilk are not liberals, they’re LEFTISTS. As Goldstein suggests, the first fight is to take back language.
phreshone on November 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Yes to the Left that one can get. Extreme. We live to close to San Fran Nan. Our County, Republicans rule. I think that some didn’t go vote. Is a pretty populated Town.
I don’t know what to say on this subject. Knowing that the Dems. Have done nothing for us. Then they use the money for other Interests Groups.
Pelosi looks good with Blue hair too……….:)
sheebe on November 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM
They need to get rid of Pelosi.
Terrye on November 8, 2008 at 4:41 PM
The Blue Dogs will be sacrificed on the alter of Gun Control.
mad saint jack on November 8, 2008 at 4:53 PM
If those are examples of Dem ‘moderates” then the Blue Dog is truely extinct.
SuperCool on November 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Most of the Blue Dogs are in there because of Rahm. Rahm is going to put a muzzle on Pelosi. He’s very pro-blue-dog. Her stupid gratuitous anti-Bush rant gave some Republicans an excuse to vote against the rescue bill. You won’t see that nonsense again ’cause the moment she opens her mouth to say something stupid Rahmbo will be going “STFU!”.
Plus the Blue Dogs take some of the wind out of arguments that all Democrats are terrorist-loving America-haters.
jim_collins on November 8, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Also, I find the photo accompanying this article deeply creepy and disturbing.
jim_collins on November 8, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Ed,
Where’d you get that picture? If I was a Blue Dog Democrat, that pic would make me become an Independent.
Sapwolf on November 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Y-not your request for clarification is spot on. Discussion of specific issues is necessary if social conservatives and conservatives not comfortable with talk of religion in the public square are to find common ground. Ultimately, I see the fundamental basis of all conservatives as:
- faithfulness to the Constitution as a contract not a living document,
- limited government – limited by the enumerated powers,
- and Federalism.
Certainly there is overlap here, still, social conservatives (myself included), often look to these bases to frame issues with which we are concerned. Whether the issue that concerns you is eminent domain or embryonic stem cell research, I feel that if you utilize these basic principles you are a conservative worth knowing. Small government is small government. Example, cutting head start or other discretionary funding. Is this a social conservative or fiscal conservative position? My view is the label is unimportant and the distinction is meaningless.
Thus the process of thinking as an enumerated powers conservative is at least equally important as the issues to which they are applied.
Thank you for letting me offer you my .02. : ))
Angry Dumbo on November 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Y-not: Ok, you lost me..I’m slow.
So, black Obama voters are considered mainstream conservatives? Thats the logical takeaway from your statement.
jim_collins on November 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Yeah, sorry about that —
What I mean is that being opposed to gay marriage (and wanting government to step in to legislate that position) is not an issue solely advocated/promoted by the religious right, since people on the (political) left are also opposed to gay marriage.
So I guess what I’m searching for are the issues that are really ones that are particularly identified with the “religious right,” as opposed to ones that members of the religious right concern themselves with but that other groups also rally around (like abortion).
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Thanks. Those are great points, but I don’t think those fundamental principles sufficiently describe the conservative wing of the Republican party. “Limited government” can be used to justify all sorts of positions that I think conservative Republicans (as opposed to Libertarians) would find objectionable… I think there are certain defining issues that need to addressed in the party platform and probably other ones that need to come out of it.
At the end of the day, we do all need to just address things on a case by case basis, I guess… but I think there is a tug of war developing between social conservatives and other types of conservatives, but everyone seems to have a different definition of what “social conservatism” (or the “religious right”) embodies.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Y-not: Just speaking for myself (and this thread has gone wildly off-topic, ce la vie) I would perceive anti-abortion (let’s face it, is anyone literally “pro-abortion” except the Chinese government?) and anti gay marriage (has a high ick factor) as social conservative positions that I could respect and understand if not agree with, whereas anti-stem-cell and anti-assisted-suicide are positions pretty much exclusive to Catholics, IMHO. Even Nancy Reagan and McCain are pro-stem-cell. Stem cells are derived from test-tube embryos
(actually 32-celled blastocysts, they look like a blob of cells), not aborted fetuses (ick ick ick)
jim_collins on November 8, 2008 at 6:56 PM
There ya go Mr. Bomma. Your lookin for some new pooches for the White House. lol.
eh, a lttle humor there ….
johnnyU on November 8, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Obvious exit question: Will Pelosi cry “Palomino!”?
csdeven on November 8, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Jim: I think you mean embryonic stem cell research. As opposed to doing research using adult stem cells. Which are supposedly more stable, and thus have better “hang your hat on it” value for what results are obtained. The problem is that there was no Federal funding for SC research before Bush, and when he said “ok, we’ll pay some, but you got to use what Embryonic SCs you have now, before you can use any new ones,” that’s when the press (in their inimitable scientific illiteracy) cried “War on Science!” – their usual marks simply fell for it, is all.
CaptFlood, Y-Not – that Americana Party sounds like it’s a pretty good idea. The thing is, I’d say we ought to use it to try and reclaim the GOP first (and eventually the Democrat Party too, but that’d be quite a ways off). We’re still supposedly a center-right nation. And I think we’re pretty much all in agreement on HA that the GOP has leadership issues, not great fundamental flaws. People like us need to go to party meetings, and clearly tell those who’ve been more active with the GOP in the past (and run it into the dirt) exactly what we the voters think the GOP ought to be doing. If they still decide to continue as they are now, that is the time to strike out on our own. Until then, why give up the “free” organization inherent with fixing the party?
Blacksmith on November 9, 2008 at 12:33 AM
DING DING
Dems have nothing to fear anymore. Look at the senate theft in Minnesota for a preview of “elections” to come. Obama could go on national TV and say “GOD DAMN AMERICA” the day before the next election and he’s still win Ohio 51-49.
Democracy died in this country on Tuesday night. Better get used to that idea.
angryed on November 9, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Stalin was never gotten rid of. He died in his bed. Which is just as well as he was planning the mass extermination of Soviet Jews in his final years.
aengus on November 9, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Comment pages: